By negotiating with the Palestinian terrorists, as opposed to ruthlessly eliminating them, Israel is putting itself on the course to committing suicide.
There are only two kinds of force: the initiation of force (which means an entity beginning the force) and the retaliatory use of force against those who initiate force. Every human being, by their very nature, constantly chooses between two or more alternatives in action through the use of their own mind. The initiation of force entails the physical compulsion by one individual or group of individuals meant to force another individual or group of individuals from being able to make a choice between two or more alternatives in some aspect or all aspects of their life. The initiators of force attempt to forbid an individual from making a choice by dictating to that individual what action they must take in some given area. For example, an individual may be trying to decide between spending their money for themself or giving it to someone else. The initiation of force would entail an individual or a group of individuals forcing this individual to either spend their money for themself or give it to someone else, against the free will of that individual. So, the important point here is that the initiation of force physically forces another individual or group of individuals from being able to fully use their mind to make choices.
The retaliatory use of force is the response to those who initiate the use of force. This entails doing whatever is necessary in order to stop those who have initiated force.
In most wars or “conflicts,” one nation initiates force against the other. There are only three responses to the initiation of force (or the threat of the initiation of force): to ignore it, to appease those who are initiating the force, or to retaliate against those who are initiating the force, in the attempt to eliminate the force.
Let’s take a look at a child throwing a temper-tantrum. Ignore the child, and the child continues to throw the temper-tantrum for an extended period of time until the child feels like stopping, at which time, much damage has been done. Appease the child, and the child learns that throwing a temper-tantrum can get them rewards from their parents. Punish the child, and the child learns that throwing a temper-tantrum is not the proper way to get what one wants.
This is a proper analogy to what happens when a nation either ignores, appeases, or retaliates against, the initiation of force from another nation. If a nation ignores the initiation of force, there is nothing to stop the initiators from completely destroying the nation. If a nation attempts to appease or negotiate with the initiators of force, it is possible that the violence may stop in the short-term, but what message will this send in the long-term? It will tell the initiators of force that initiating force is a successful policy to engage in if they want to achieve their goals. This only emboldens these initiators of force to engage in future acts of force, because there is nothing stopping them. When they initiate force, they will not be punished, but rather rewarded with certain things offered up by the nation being attacked in exchange for the end of the intiation of force. If a nation retaliates against those who initiate force against them, it will end the initiation of force in the short-term, and in the long-term, it will send the message to those who initiate force that that policy is not beneficial towards achieving their own goals, and will only be met with severe punishment.
This being said, it is right for a nation, under the initiation of force from another group of people, to retaliate in order to eliminate the threat and to send the message that the initiation of force will not achieve the goals of any nation. The message that is sent by retaliating against the initiators of force is absolutely critical to maintaining peace for one’s nation in the future. By retaliating against all those nations which initiate force against it, it sends the message that there is nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, from initiating force against them. Retaliation thereby not only eliminates the current threat, but greatly helps to prevent future initiations of force that other nations may think to engage in.
Israel, in its history, has understood that the retaliation against those who initiate force is the best way to achieve long-term peace. Time and time again they have responded to the Palestinian terrorist attacks against them, not by attempting to negotiate with the terrorists, not by ignoring the terrorists, but by attempting to eliminate the threat and send the message that the terrorist attacks will achieve nothing. However, in recent times, there has been pressure from many outside nations, especially the United States, to appease the terrorists that are attacking them by negotiating a “peace deal” with them. And now, buckling under the pressure of international opinion, they have begun the process of doing so. What will this accomplish? It is possible that in the short-term, such a deal with the Palestinians will decrease the amount of violence against Israeli citizens. However, in the long-term, it will send the message to the Palestinians that terrorizing Israeli’s is a successful policy for achieving whatever they want. Kill some Israeli civilians and the Israelis will give us more concessions.
The possibility that appeasing initiators of force will reduce attacks in the short-term is only a possibility. In the case of Israel, I do not believe it is. In fact, I believe firmly that the retaliation against the Palestinians is the best course of action for achieving peace. In support of this position, I offer the following article, War for Peace by Robert Tracinski
In March, 108 civilians were murdered and more than 500 injured in terrorist attacks on Israel. Another 22 soldiers and three policemen, by my count, were also killed. It was the climax of Yasser Arafat’s uprising and the bloodiest month of terrorism in Israel’s history.
The terrorist attacks came almost daily, targeting Israelis going about their normal business. On March 2, 10 Israelis were killed—including two infants in strollers—when a terrorist from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade blew himself up outside a bar mitzvah. On March 5, three people were killed and 30 injured when an officer in the Palestinian naval police opened fire on a seafood restaurant and nightclub in Tel Aviv. On March 9, two people were killed in a sniper attack near the boardwalk in the resort town of Netanya.
That same day, 11 more Israelis were killed by a Hamas suicide bomber at a sidewalk cafe in Jerusalem. On March 20, seven people died when Islamic Jihad blew up a bus on its route from Tel Aviv to Nazareth. On March 26, international observers from Turkey and Switzerland were shot and killed in an ambush by Palestinian gunmen. This is just a sampling of the terror campaign that reached its peak with the Passover Massacre. If the U.N. wants to investigate massacres, they should start with this orgy of killing.
On March 29, when Israel began its invasion of the West Bank, French President Jacques Chirac sniffed, “Everyone knows there cannot be a military solution to the conflict in the Middle East.” I’m sure that’s what his predecessor said, six decades ago, about Germany.
The facts have proved him wrong.
About 30 Israeli soldiers were killed in Operation Defensive Shield—not many more than in the preceding month. But the number of civilian deaths has dropped dramatically. In the past four weeks, there have been only three significant terrorist attacks. On April 10, a Hamas bomber blew up a bus, killing eight off-duty soldiers and policemen. On April 12, a zealot from Islamic Jihad shot an Israeli border policeman and a Palestinian worker at a border crossing. Later that same day, a bomber at a bus stop killed four Israelis and two foreign workers from China.
In the past two weeks, from April 13 to April 26, only two Israelis have been killed. One was a soldier, the other a member of the border police. Not a single civilian has been killed. The barrage of murder has been stopped, for now.
Through war, Ariel Sharon has achieved what he could not even get as a show of good faith from Palestinian negotiators: seven days of quiet. He bought this respite the only way anyone can ever buy peace from terrorism: by killing the terrorists, seizing their stocks of explosives, taking away their guns and imprisoning (or at least “isolating") their leaders.
The alleged goal of the Palestinian terrorist groups is the complete destruction of Israel. The deal being brokered now between the Israelis and the Palestinians is essentially this: the Israelis will give the Palestinians land in exchange for the Palestinians promising that they will not attack the Israelis. But why stop there? After this deal is completed (if it is completed), why don’t the Palestinians continue their terror attacks against Israel and get more land, and then more land? It appears that the Palestinians have every intention to do so. And why not? There is nothing stopping them, as long as Israel refuses to retaliate against them.
Israel: recognize your right to defend yourself against terrorists who initiate force against you, and recognize that the complete elimination of all the Palestinian terrorist groups, and all of the Middle Eastern terrorist groups is the only way to achieve long-term peace for your country. Recognize that the decision to negotiate with terrorists is the decision to committ suicide.
America: recognize that Israel has the right to defend itself against initiators of force, allow the Israeli army to march through any country which initiates force against them, and recognize the complete hypocrisy of advocating the destruction of all terrorist groups attacking America but at the same time advocating that Israel negotiate with the terrrorists attacking them.
